Sampling design and sample processing affect soil biodiversity assessments
Chen, M.; Dulya, O.; Mikryukov, V.; Copot, O.; Metsoja, M.; Tedersoo, L.
Show abstract
Biodiversity surveys require an appropriate sampling design for optimal performance and comparability across space and time and across studies. Based on PacBio and Illumina amplicon sequencing of animals, bacteria and fungi, we assessed and compared various soil sampling designs from widely used continental and global metabarcoding-based biodiversity projects. Sampling designs revealed up to 27-fold, 6-fold and 15-fold differences in biodiversity estimates for animals, bacteria and fungi, respectively. Taxonomic coverage depended mostly on the number of subsamples but not sampling area within the 347-1790 m2, 428-1924 m2, 327-1790 m2 plot size range for animals, bacteria and fungi, respectively. Additional sampling of subsoil did not add significantly to diversity estimates of animals and fungi, although there was a slight positive effect on bacteria. Both soil pooling (compositing subsamples before DNA extraction) and DNA pooling (combining DNA extracts prior to PCR) reduced differences between sampling designs by decreasing diversity estimates in designs with many subsamples while increasing them in designs with fewer subsamples. However, pooling did not eliminate the influence of sampling factors (soil depth, sampling area and sample size). DNA pooling outperformed soil pooling in inventorying animals and fungi but not bacteria. Pooling had no effect on recovering rare biological species or sequencing artefacts. Soil pooling saved from 79.5% to 98.3% of labour and analytical costs compared with no pooling, depending on the number of pooled subsamples. The remarkable impact of sampling design on community diversity and composition should be considered during data collection and meta-analyses compiling data from different sampling designs.
Matching journals
The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Contrasting responses of protistan plant parasites and phagotrophs to ecosystems, land management and soil properties 96%
- Land-use and forest floor explain prokaryotic metacommunity structuring and spatial turnover in Amazonian forest-to-pasture conversion areas 96%
- Wine terroir and the soil microbiome: an amplicon sequencing-based assessment of the Barossa Valley and its sub-regions 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of primer pairs for microbiome profiling across a food chain from soils to humans within the One Health framework 96%
- Benchmarking long-read sequencing strategies for obtaining ASV-resolved rRNA operons from environmental microeukaryotes 96%
- Unlocking River Biofilm Microbial Diversity: A Comparative Analysis of Sequencing Technologies 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Aspen-associated soil microbiomes reveal different strategies for nitrogen acquisition across ecosystems in Mexico and Canada 96%
- Divergent assembly trajectories: a comparison of the plant and soil microbiome with plant communities in a glacier forefield 96%
- Biogeographical patterns in soil bacterial communities across the Arctic region 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Tillage homogenizes soil bacterial communities in microaggregate fractions by facilitating dispersal 96%
- Virome responses to heating of a forest soil suggest that most dsDNA viral particles do not persist at 90°C 95%
- Soil protist diversity enhances prokaryotic diversity, and regulates dominant prokaryotes and the abundance of key nitrogen cycling genes 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Assembly of the amphibian microbiome is influenced by the effects of land-use change on environmental reservoirs 96%
- What's past is past, mostly: Brassicaceae host plants mask the feedback from the previous year's soil history on bacterial communities, except when the Brassicaceae hosts experience drought 95%
- Dominance of coniferous and broadleaved trees drives bacterial associations with boreal feather mosses 95%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.